Hello Raphael Hertzog,
thanks for your feedback on the issue
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:49:37PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
[...]
> > My conclusion is thus that this is a false positive and the bug report
> > should simply be closed.
[...]
>
Hello,
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> The source of live-build might well need improvements to deal with
> what's inside the chroot it works with, but I don't think that's
> the main focus of this bug report. A package relationship of live-build,
> could not influence what's
Hi Alex,
No updates from the tasksel maintainers on #861065. I built a live-gnustep
image and did some preliminary testing, will update the other bug with some
comments.
Ana
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Alex Myczko wrote:
> Thanks Ana
>
> Any updates on this? Who is on the other bug?
Am 14.02.2018 um 15:46 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
>> Would likely be better if we file separate bug reports for separate
>> issues, for example this typo will likely always make the ntfs check
>> fail but that's offtopic for this bug report:
>>
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 887278 + pending
Bug #887278 [live-build] live-build should depend on e2fsprogs explicitly
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
887278:
Hi Ana,
No updates from the tasksel maintainers on #861065. I built a
live-gnustep image and did some preliminary testing, will update the
other bug with some comments.
That's cool, thanks.
The biggest issue for now is probably Debian abandonning debian/menu
files,
and wmaker only
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > /sbin/mkfs.ntfs is a path to an existing program
>
> Agreed, but that's not what the source code uses.
> Please read the source again. You'll spot it. ;)
Duh, indeed. Fixed in git. Thanks to Stefan who also showed me the typo.
Cheers,
--
On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 12:27 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Can you please let us know your availability on the following:
> - March 3
This works, but would be my least preferred option as it means the p-u
freeze would be in just over a week's time.
> - March 10
> - March 17
> - March 24
Any of
On 14944 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> we shipped 9.3 a couple of months ago, so we're overdue for 9.4.
> Can you please let us know your availability on the following:
> - March 3
> - March 10
Can do.
> - March 17
Not very good
> - March 24
> - March 31
No way.
--
bye, Joerg
